A luxury problem with a luxury solution (43mm Pentax Special)

[Renato Tonelli]

Renato,

Both are good: that's the problem with making a decision.

In the end the Pentax offers speed though at F-1.9. That's what did it for me.

The Rollie is tiny though...


Cal

Agreed - the f/1.9 max. aperture on the Pentax is what attracts me to that lens as well - I want to use at max. aperture for a particular project. I have read that it is not "as sharp" wide open and I guess I will have to decide for myself if that is acceptable or not.

 

[furcafe]

The type of M body you have also makes a difference because the size of the framelines has changed over time/model. E.g., Leica made the framelines on the M 240 bigger than those on the M9, M7, M6 TTL, etc. to accommodate the old-school shooters who preferred the more landscape-sized framelines on the M2, M3, M4, etc. In my experience, the 35mm framelines for 40mm lenses work well on the M6TTL, M7, & M9 at the distances I shoot at the most, less than 3m. However, I've discovered that the 35mm framelines on the 240 are often overly generous for 40mm & I'll end up accidentally cutting things off; I may switch to 50mm.

One caveat about the Pentax 43/50 VF: I think it's meant to be used on a "Barnack" LTM body & will be off center sideways & too high up on an M body. Again, not much of a problem when shooting at infinity.

Hello Renato, I would think that a 40mm accessory viewfinder would work fine. Framing with a rangefinder camera is always going to be somewhat of an estimation.

I have just obtained a LTM to M mount adapter for my Pentax 43mm which brings up the 35mm framelines on my M9, and the framing is pretty accurate at the 1-5 meter distances that I usually shoot at. Therefore, I won't be using the 43mm accessory viewfinder that came with the lens.

 

[Calzone]

The type of M body you have also makes a difference because the size of the framelines has changed over time/model. E.g., Leica made the framelines on the M 240 bigger than those on the M9, M7, M6 TTL, etc. to accommodate the old-school shooters who preferred the more landscape-sized framelines on the M2, M3, M4, etc. In my experience, the 35mm framelines for 40mm lenses work well on the M6TTL, M7, & M9 at the distances I shoot at the most, less than 3m. However, I've discovered that the 35mm framelines on the 240 are often overly generous for 40mm & I'll end up accidentally cutting things off; I may switch to 50mm.

One caveat about the Pentax 43/50 VF: I think it's meant to be used on a "Barnack" LTM body & will be off center sideways & too high up on an M body. Again, not much of a problem when shooting at infinity.

Furcafe,

Thanks for the info. This helps me a lot because I will be using the Pentax-L on my Monochrom and MP, but I also own a 45/2.8 Super Rokkor that would be awesome on a Barnack.

Cal

 

[Renato Tonelli]

One caveat about the Pentax 43/50 VF: I think it's meant to be used on a "Barnack" LTM body & will be off center sideways & too high up on an M body. Again, not much of a problem when shooting at infinity.

That is something I was not aware of and of some importance to me. I was planning on using the lens/viewfinder on an M2 for interior (close range) subjects.

If anyone has experienced this first-hand, I would appreciate your input.

 

[Calzone]

That is something I was not aware of and of some importance to me. I was planning on using the lens/viewfinder on an M2 for interior (close range) subjects.

If anyone has experienced this first-hand, I would appreciate your input.

M2 and M4 frames for 50mm are larger than on my M6 and MP. To me I always liked the bigger frames and the uncluttered look of the 50 frames only without the 75mm frames on the older cameras. On my M6 and MP I had Sherry remove the 75mm frames. If the M2 RF'er is the same as a M4 then the RF patch is also bigger than my M6 or MP, another bonus.

I don't intend on using my Pentax 43/50 VF'er on a M-body, but I will use the external VF'er when and if I get a Barnack. I figure its not too hard to develope accurate framing from a referenced standard. For instance I don't need the 75mm frames to shoot one as long as I have 50mm frames. I know all I have to do is subtract the lengnth of my RF patch from the sides and the width of my RF patch from the top and bottom of my 50mm frames.

In my case I have two nice framing possibilities with the 43/1.9 Pentax-L: one is use the 135mm frame as a reference and use it for the middle rectangle when composing using the Rule Of Thirds. I shoot vertically a lot and I find that if I use the Rule Of Thirds and frame someone's face in the middle rectangle I consistently get nice/great compositions that are tight shots. I do this all the time with a 28 Cron using the 90mm frame as the center rectangle. 45mm into 135mm is exactly a third, so 43mm is close enough.

My second possibility is using the 50 as a reference, and like shooting a 75mm with only 50mm frames I can add the length to the sides and add the width to the top and bottom instead of subtracting like I do when shooting a 75. I like the bigger frame of the 50 for squaring up the longer framelines with verticles and horizontals.

I would say this: not having the frames and learning to compose off of references changes the way you compose in a great way that is out of the box. I find it refreshing and would even say that it has its advantages. I say just learn to compensate and turn a handicap into a refreshing advantage.

BTW the M2-M4 frames are really nice, and I whish my M6 and MP had the bigger frames.

Cal

 

[furcafe]

I do have 1st-hand experience, which is why I posted the caveat. Rather than use the Pentax VF on the M2 for close-range shooting, I would use it as a reference (since it shows both 43mm & 50mm frames) & mentally transpose/imagine the 43mm frames.

If anyone has experienced this first-hand, I would appreciate your input.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I do have 1st-hand experience, which is why I posted the caveat. Rather than use the Pentax VF on the M2 for close-range shooting, I would use it as a reference (since it shows both 43mm & 50mm frames) & mentally transpose/imagine the 43mm frames.

Makes perfect sense; even I can deal with that.🙂

 

[Calzone]

I just got delivery at work.

First off the VF'er is so nice and the built in diopter is really great. The lens kinda gives me a phantom experiance of being light weight because it has less mass than my chromed brass 50 Lux ASPH. I basically bought a lens that is in LN condition with all the original packaging. The bonus is a Leica LTM adpter and Leica M-cap. in addition to the Pentax LTM cap.

The 50mm frames on my 0.85 are very big, and it works out that the entire VF'er is perfect in every way to be used for the 43mm FOV. The difference from my MP's 50mm frames is less than I expected.

It seems that the 43/1.9 is going to be my main lens on my black paint MP. Having the added magnification, and the supersized VF'er that surprisingly ideal for the 43mm FOV (I wear glasses). I can see this MP and 43/1.9 being a very fast rig for street.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

Cal, that is going to be one awesome combo. I'll have to check it out one day.

 

[Calzone]

Cal, that is going to be one awesome combo. I'll have to check it out one day.

John,

I think you would like it. Somehow there is some due influence on your part. Although the chrome lens looks heavy it is made of aluminum, but it has a very good build quality. It definately will be a mucho fast shooter with a quick focus made even more rapid via magnification and VF-er size.

In a word: "Brutal." LOL. Imaging using the entire 0.85 VF'er to frame the 43mm FOV.

BTW I relinquish my Wetzlar M6 to be my small camera to be used with that black Canon 28/3.5, 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM and a 45/2.8 Super Rokkor. It is my three lens micro-kit. If you like focus tabs I think you will love the mamouth scalloped focus ring on the Super Rokkor. Also its size is mucho small. It is somewhat a Tessar/Heliar der-rivit-tive that vignettes like a MoFo wide open, but is sharp in the center with punchy contrast due to few elements.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

John,

In a word: "Brutal." LOL. Imaging using the entire 0.85 VF'er to frame the 43mm FOV.

Even with glasses it's ok?

BTW I relinquish my Wetzlar M6 to be my small camera to be used with that black Canon 28/3.5, 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM and a 45/2.8 Super Rokkor. It is my three lens micro-kit.

That's quite a cool set-up. You know how I feel about the Canon and Nikkor.

If you like focus tabs I think you will love the mamouth scalloped focus ring on the Super Rokkor. Also its size is mucho small. It is somewhat a Tessar/Heliar der-rivit-tive that vignettes like a MoFo wide open, but is sharp in the center with punchy contrast due to few elements.

Cal

Sounds very cool. I'll have to research it since I don't think I'm familiar with it.

 

[Calzone]

John,

With my glasses the 0.85 VF'er is perfect.

The 45/2.8 Super Rokkor (Minolta before they became Minolta) is smaller than the 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM. The Canon 28/3.5 is still the smallest.

Cal

 

[sleepyhead]

BTW I relinquish my Wetzlar M6 to be my small camera to be used with that black Canon 28/3.5, 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM and a 45/2.8 Super Rokkor. It is my three lens micro-kit.
Cal

On this recent family vacation, I had the 43mm Pentax along with a 28mm Summicron and a 90mm Macro-Elmar-M. I think that this a 3-lens kit that I'll be using a lot.

These three lenses are similar in size and good for me ergonomically, and when looking at the results from my vacation they had very similar looks in terms of contrast. The 28mm Summicron did however make the 43mm Pentax seem not so sharp in comparison, but the truth is that the Pentax is sharp enough for me, even wide open. I shot the Pentax at f/2.8 mainly because there the results were magical: very sharp but with plenty of lovely bokeh.

 

[Calzone]

On this recent family vacation, I had the 43mm Pentax along with a 28mm Summicron and a 90mm Macro-Elmar-M. I think that this a 3-lens kit that I'll be using a lot.

These three lenses are similar in size and good for me ergonomically, and when looking at the results from my vacation they had very similar looks in terms of contrast. The 28mm Summicron did however make the 43mm Pentax seem not so sharp in comparison, but the truth is that the Pentax is sharp enough for me, even wide open. I shot the Pentax at f/2.8 mainly because there the results were magical: very sharp but with plenty of lovely bokeh.

Sleepyhead,

You have good taste: I own a black 28 Cron, now the 43/1.9 Pentax-L, and an extra heavy chrome 90/4.0 Macro Elmar.

The 28 Cron is an exceptional lens and surely is the high bar as far as IQ, and there is something very punchy yet elegant about the sharp rendering of the Macro Elmar that I also love.

In exploring the Pentax-L last night I saw that because it was designed for LTM the minimum close focus is only three feet, but I think the most advanced feature on the Pentax-L is the very fast focus that is a lot faster than my chrome 50 Lux ASPH. Stop-to-stop the focus rotation is only 90 degrees, making the Pentax-L with its focus tab ergonomically my fastest lens for shooting, unless I'm zone focusing.

Here in NYC the little extra wide FOV with the OOF and bokeh of a normal lens is welcomed for urban street shooting. Already I can see that this lens is going to get a lot of use for street shooting in NYC. The M-body is a black paint 0.85 MP rigged with a TA Rapidgrip and TA Rapidwinder. I was also thinking the same thing: the 90 Macro Elmar and Pentax-L are about the same size. Also I use the cylindrical hood from a version three 50 Elmar on my Macro Elmar to minimize the size. Using filters with this hood causes no vignetting.

Even the 50 Lux ASPH, a perfect lens, seems to have a sweet spot two stops down from wide open at F2.8. This is where I like to shoot, unless I need the speed or shallow DOF with a normal lens.

Cal

 

[sleepyhead]

Sleepyhead,

In exploring the Pentax-L last night I saw that because it was designed for LTM the minimum close focus is only three feet, but I think the most advanced feature on the Pentax-L is the very fast focus that is a lot faster than my chrome 50 Lux ASPH. Stop-to-stop the focus rotation is only 90 degrees, making the Pentax-L with its focus tab ergonomically my fastest lens for shooting, unless I'm zone focusing.

Cal

Cal, yes, the short focus throw of the Pentax lens struck me within seconds of picking up the lens. I find the focus tab a little "pointy" compared to Leica lenses, but rapidly got used to it.

 

[raid]

I got both, the Rollei 40/2.8 and the Pentax-L 43/1.9. Both are lenses that I enjoy using.

 

[zuiko85]

Wow, old thread. Never the less when I read the OP the thought that came to mind was my little (and cheap) Olympus 35RC. A 42mm f2.8 in a compact camera with full manual control. Doggone close to 43mm, not as fast, but good lens at 1/10 or less of the price and available (and frees up your Leica for a different angle of view).

 

[Calzone]

UPDATE: I no longer own my 50 Lux ASPH. I traded it for a 35 Lux 3-cam to use on my SL, but I still have my silver Pentax-L Special to use as my normal lens.

Anyways I'll be checking it for sharpness on my SL. I'll report back.

Cal

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I am still looking for an affordable Pentax-L 43mm; they don't seem to come up for sale very often.

 

[Doug]

Not so common in the US, I understand they were marketed mostly in Japan. Only 2000 were made. I got mine in 2003 from an RFF member in Canada who had gotten it from Japan.

I use a LTM-M bayonet adapter setting 50mm framelines, then compose "loose" in the viewfinder.

Given that it's marked an odd 43mm focal length, it may be fair to assume that designation is accurate. I also have the 1.4/40 Nokton and find that it's a bit long for a nominal 40mm lens... about the same as the Pentax-L. My 2.0/40 Rokkor is clearly wider than either, probably right on 40mm I'd guess.